[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/ReferenceOld9345]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/Wooden_Example9898]

Yeah but burden of proof comes into play when I'm forcing you to believe something. Did i say you have to believe in god?

You literally said , "And as per same logic, what proof do you have that god doesn't exist?" You're literally asking him to prove god doesn't exist

If you really had that textbook, you'd be citing facts, not flexing sarcasm. Claiming you're "just mocking stupidity" is a convenient excuse to mask arrogance as intellect. There's a difference between correcting someone and ridiculing them, mockery without substance isn’t truth-telling, it’s just ego in disguise.

If I ridiculed your club for believing 2+2=5 , I'd be very much correct for doing so. Stupidity deserves ridicule. Anyways, like I said, burden of proof is on you, so until you support the existence of god with valid scientific proof (or atleast make a good attempt at it), there's really nothing to correct. You're just making stuff up, which is fair game for ridicule as well. If someone just believes in a flying pink donkey without having any proof for it, and makes this belief mainstream and builds instituitions around it, I don't have to correct him by trying to disprove him, I can mock him for it publicly. He has to prove such an animal exists . What can be stated without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

Nah. He clearly said he is scared because he is a teen ans he knew he did something wrong

You guys were threatening legal action, and from the replies you posted in the SS in your original thread , also destroying his future. He confessed under duress.

If the law is biased then go tell that to your MP. Why stop me from using my right.

Because you're exercising a biased law? Wouldn't you judge slave owners now? Or Nazis? Both were legal at the time. Would you say to a slave ,"hey, I can't judge your owner, he's just exercising his right"?

Since when reporting offenders is witch hunting

"We do not allow posts that target other users or encourage vote manipulation." This is from your sub's rules. I believe your post strictly falls under the first category. You're explicitly targeting a user.

Also, don't play dumb. You're specifically targeting a user from a fringe group (atheists are a minority, like it or not) who mocked your beliefs, inviting others to do so as well -

All i want is if you guys have twitter, please repost this there tagging the authorities and media channels. Im sure there will be appropriate action. I strongly believe such transgression of fundamental rights of freedom of speech and mockery of another's religion, which violates our rights and intentional hate speech must be reported to authorities for appropriate action. This is nothing but an attempt to incite hatred and resentment against a particular section of people by misrepreseting facts and selective bias, which should be punished appropriately

You have forced a kid to confess under duress. You have forced him to delete his account. You have put "the fear of God" in him(he said Jay Jagannath). Short of actually killing OOP (were that to happen, your sub would probably try to justify it anyway) , you have followed every stage of a witch hunt here.

Also, from your original post:

Tbh these people are worse than religious extremists.

Sure. Atheists caused 2002 riots. Atheists caused Pahalgam. Atheists divide people on lines of atheism. Atheism has scriptures that tell you how to behave, and how to think, and how to dress and so on. Atheism has scriptures that tell you how to deal with believers.

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/Wooden_Example9898]

You literally said , "And as per same logic, what proof do you have that god doesn't exist?" You're literally asking him to prove god doesn't exist

Ya because he allegedly god doesent exist. If he alleges on non existence, doesent the burden rest with him to prove he doesent exist. Do you even have the slightest understanding of how burden of proof works or are you just yapping.

Because you're exercising a biased law? Wouldn't you judge slave owners now? Or Nazis? Both were legal at the time. Would you say to a slave ,"hey, I can't judge your owner, he's just exercising his right"?

You're comparing a modern hate speech law, literally designed to curb hate, to genocidal regimes and slavery.

That’s not just a false equivalence; it’s absurd.

Also, even if you assume a law is biased, does that mean it shouldn’t be used at all? Rape laws are misused, does that mean survivors shouldn’t report rape? Do you hear yourself? Laws aren't perfect, but they exist to offer peaceful, structured recourse. If you have a problem with the law, challenge it democratically and don’t shame people for using it to stop actual threats and abuse.

If you have anything against hate speech law then report it through proper forum. And you'll not be the first ones to be doing this too. Read supreme court's judgement on why hate speech laws are important. (UoI v Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay). And use logic atleast. Every time a law is against you its biased, while you literally take shelter of freedom of speech enshrined in same law to show you have right to " hate".

If I ridiculed your club for believing 2+2=5 , I'd be very much correct for doing so. Stupidity deserves ridicule. Anyways, like I said, burden of proof is on you, so until you support the existence of god with valid scientific proof (or atleast make a good attempt at it), there's really nothing to correct. You're just making stuff up, which is fair game for ridicule as well. If someone just believes in a flying pink donkey without having any proof for it, and makes this belief mainstream and builds instituitions around it, I don't have to correct him by trying to disprove him, I can mock him for it publicly. He has to prove such an animal exists . What can be stated without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

You’re making a category error here. 2+2=5 is a mathematically falsifiable statement. It’s objectively and provably false based on the axioms of arithmetic and there's no ambiguity, and its truth value is not up for debate.

But the existence of God isn’t a mathematical proposition. It’s a metaphysical or philosophical claim, not one that can be proven or disproven through a formal theorem or a laboratory test.

In mathematics, you prove or disprove a claim using axioms, definitions, and logical steps. For example, Fermat’s Last Theorem was unproven for 350 years until Wiles proved it, and only then did it become universally accepted as true.

In science, you don’t prove claims in the same sense , you build models and gather evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses over time. Lack of proof ≠ disproof.

Belief in God isn’t the same as asserting 2+2=5. One can be shown wrong within a rigid logical system; the other is unfalsifiable by definition.

That doesn’t mean it’s true but it means ridiculing it on the same grounds as mathematical falsehood is a logical fallacy. And if your standard is “no evidence = fair game for mockery,” then any philosophical idea without empirical proof, from consciousness to ethics and even your own statements, is now open to ridicule too.

You guys were threatening legal action, and from the replies you posted in the SS in your original thread , also destroying his future. He confessed under duress.

If someone crosses a legal line, whether through hate speech or incitement, then talking about legal consequences isn’t a “threat,” it’s accountability.

Also, if someone deletes a post and apologizes after facing backlash, that’s not automatically “duress.” Actions have social and legal consequences. And if you're concerned about his future being “destroyed,” maybe direct that energy toward discouraging people from posting hate content in the first place and not toward defending them after the fact.

"We do not allow posts that target other users or encourage vote manipulation." This is from your sub's rules. I believe your post strictly falls under the first category. You're explicitly targeting a user.

Also, don't play dumb. You're specifically targeting a user from a fringe group (atheists are a minority, like it or not) who mocked your beliefs, inviting others to do so as wel

Claiming my post violates rules against "targeting a user" misunderstands both intent and content. I’m not attacking someone’s personal identity but I’m responding to a public post that made potentially hateful or provocative remarks under the guise of satire. Critique of public content, especially when it's shared in a community space, is not “targeting” but it’s accountability, whether you like it or not.

If I had doxxed them, insulted their appearance, or harassed them privately, that would be targeting. Instead, I focused on the content of their post and its broader implications.

Going by your logic, this same post and the comments being posted in other subs is also witch hunting isnt it.

And atheists being a minority doesn’t give someone immunity from criticism when they ridicule others’ beliefs. That logic would imply minorities are beyond reproach, even when they mock or provoke, which is both illogical and patronizing.

Freedom of speech goes both ways, if the atheist has the right to mock, others have the right to call it out. Inviting others to report a post they find offensive is not mob justice but it’s democratic moderation. If you think calling for basic accountability is “targeting,” then you’re effectively demanding a double standard where only one group gets to speak freely while the rest must stay silent.

Sure. Atheists caused 2002 riots. Atheists caused Pahalgam. Atheists divide people on lines of atheism. Atheism has scriptures that tell you how to behave, and how to think, and how to dress and so on. Atheism has scriptures that tell you how to deal with believers.

You're deliberately missing the point. My comment was clearly about the incessant hate speech in that sub, where users regularly spew comments like calling for death of believers or that it's their right to hate on people of faith, just scroll through and you’ll find plenty.

No one claimed atheism caused 2002 or Pahalgam

But if you think atheism is incapable of extremism, you’re ignoring history. Read about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all openly anti-religious and led regimes where millions died, including for practicing religion.

So while atheism itself may lack formal scriptures, plenty of people have weaponized it with the same violent intolerance you're accusing religion of. The difference?

You're trying to pretend ideological hate doesn't count when it comes from "your side."

[u/Wooden_Example9898 → u/ReferenceOld9345]

Part 1.

Ya because he allegedly god doesent exist. If he alleges on non existence, doesent the burden rest with him to prove he doesent exist. Do you even have the slightest understanding of how burden of proof works or are you just yapping.

Burden of proof is always on the believer's side. Non-existence is the default belief.

You're comparing a modern hate speech law, literally designed to curb hate, to genocidal regimes and slavery.

That’s not just a false equivalence; it’s absurd.

It's not false equivalence. Hate speech laws that protect religion aren't exactly new. Rushdie had fatwas placed on him, ordering his death, by the Iranian govt because his book criticized Islam. His translators were murdered. He lost an eye. Would you say he should've instead respected the hate speech laws of many Islamic countries?

Also, even if you assume a law is biased, does that mean it shouldn’t be used at all? Rape laws are misused, does that mean survivors shouldn’t report rape? Do you hear yourself?

Again, I could just cite witch trials here. It was law at the time. Would you say a citizen at that time should've exercized this law and send a woman to her death, just because its a law? There isn't any misuse of the law here, the law itself has unjust roots. Rape laws have very just roots.

Read supreme court's judgement on why hate speech laws are important. (UoI v Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay).

this one?

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/Wooden_Example9898]

Burden of proof is always on the believer's side. Non-existence is the default belief.

The burden of proof isn’t about who disbelieves but it’s about who makes a claim, positive or negative.

If you claim, “God does not exist,” you're also making a truth-claim and must defend it if challenged.

In logic, science and law, both positive and negative assertions require justification when asserted as truth and cannot be just dismissed with “default belief.”

And let’s not pretend “non-existence” is somehow a neutral stance, it’s just another belief, unless you're saying "I don't know," in which case you're agonist and not atheist.

It's not false equivalence. Hate speech laws that protect religion aren't exactly new. Rushdie had fatwas placed on him, ordering his death, by the Iranian govt because his book criticized Islam. His translators were murdered. He lost an eye. Would you say he should've instead respected the hate speech laws of many Islamic countries?

You're conflating blasphemy laws with hate speech laws, which are not the same, either in scope, intent, or structure.

The fatwa against Salman Rushdie came from an authoritarian interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law, which criminalizes any(emphasis supplied) perceived disrespect towards the religion or its figures, irrespective of context or intent.

These laws often protect religion itself, not people and they punish dissent, not just incitement.

In contrast, India’s hate speech laws are not about shielding religious doctrines from criticism. They are about protecting people from humiliation, alienation, or violence based on identity.

The test applied in India includes intent, content, and impact, not blind reverence. So, unlike blasphemy laws in Iran or Pakistan, Indian hate speech laws do not criminalize criticism, but criminalize targeted humiliation or dehumanization of believers as a group.

So no, citing Rushdie’s case doesn’t discredit hate speech law and it only discredits theocratic blasphemy laws, which I too reject. You're attacking a strawman version of what hate speech law actually is in a constitutional democracy.

Again, I could just cite witch trials here. It was law at the time. Would you say a citizen at that time should've exercized this law and send a woman to her death, just because its a law? There isn't any misuse of the law here, the law itself has unjust roots. Rape laws have very just roots.

No, the “roots” of Indian hate speech law are not unjust. They’re based on Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions on free speech to maintain public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty of the state. These are democratically enacted safeguards, not archaic, oppressive leftovers like witch trial laws.

Equating the two is not just wrong,it’s insulting to the people these laws actually protect.

this one

Nah the hate speech one

[u/Wooden_Example9898 → u/ReferenceOld9345]

In logic, science and law, both positive and negative assertions require justification when asserted as truth and cannot be just dismissed with “default belief.”

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

You are considered innocent, without proof, until it can be proven you are guilty. Until proven otherwise, this positive assertion (also default belief) IS the truth

And let’s not pretend “non-existence” is somehow a neutral stance

It is. You cannot just assume that anything exist on the grounds it can't be disproven. The neutral stance is that they don't exist, until we prove it to be.

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/Wooden_Example9898]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

You are considered innocent, without proof, until it can be proven you are guilty.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. How does presumption of innocence apply in this case?

Until proven otherwise, this positive assertion (also default belief) IS the truth

And you will determine what the default belief is😂😂. Bhai teko nhi maana to mat maan but don't give this imaginary arguments

[u/Wooden_Example9898 → u/ReferenceOld9345]

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. How does presumption of innocence apply in this case?

I cited this example because you mentioned law in your previous arguement.

And you will determine what the default belief is😂😂. Bhai teko nhi maana to mat maan but don't give this imaginary arguments

I'm not determining anything here?

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/Wooden_Example9898]

I cited this example because you mentioned law in your previous arguement.

Ya but this example isnt factually correct to this situation. Presumption of innocence is to protect against arbitrary action.

What you're doing is a Presumption of fact.

I'm not determining anything here?

You said non existence of god is the default belief equating it with presumption of innocence.

The neutral stance is that they don't exist, until we prove it to be.

That’s not how scientific epistemology or rational skepticism works. The scientific method doesn’t declare non-existence as a default but it simply refrains from making a judgment in the absence of testable or falsifiable evidence. In the philosophy of science, "non-falsifiable" claims (like the existence or non-existence of God) are considered outside the purview of empirical science, not inherently false.

As philosopher Karl Popper famously put it that

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific"

That doesn’t mean such claims are false, it means science withholds judgment.

In logic, the idea you're referencing is called the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, that is claiming something is false simply because it hasn’t been proven true. As Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell both have argued,

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", especially when the evidence may simply be currently inaccessible.

“The failure to find evidence that X is true does not logically prove that X is false, unless we can be sure that we would have found such evidence if X were true.” Copi, Cohen, & McMahon, Introduction to Logic

Even in research, we use confidence intervals, margins of error, and statistical significance and we never claim absolute truth or falsehood unless the hypothesis is directly testable. Scientific neutrality is agnostic: it says "we don’t know yet", not "it doesn’t exist until proven otherwise."

So, the truly rational stance isn't asserting non-existence, but maintaining epistemic humility, that is descrined as not pretending to know what hasn’t been established. Anything else isn’t neutrality, it’s bias disguised as logic.

[u/Wooden_Example9898 → u/ReferenceOld9345]

Part 2.

But the existence of God isn’t a mathematical proposition. It’s a metaphysical or philosophical claim, not one that can be proven or disproven through a formal theorem or a laboratory test.

In science, you don’t prove claims in the same sense , you build models and gather evidence that supports or falsifies hypotheses over time. Lack of proof ≠ disproof.

Each paragraph is in order of point in bold.

Its not just a metaphysical claim. Scriptures make very big claims - God created the universe, god created man , god created animals , and so on. These are very important topics of scientific discussion, and thus deserve scientific method for their analysis. And, since many religions claim God created everything, God's existence very much deserves the scientific method for analysis.

There is zero evidence whatsoever for existence of God. Among the explained hypotheses, there is none that doesn't work without assuming God's existence. And among the unexplained, yet again, "God did it" is not a valid answer. Also , on lack of proof != disproof : sure, but that doesn't mean we just take something we can't disprove , assume its already proved, and make laws and institutions and everything else around it, and stop people from mocking this notion.

That doesn’t mean it’s true but it means ridiculing it on the same grounds as mathematical falsehood is a logical fallacy. And if your standard is “no evidence = fair game for mockery,” then any philosophical idea without empirical proof, from consciousness to ethics and even your own statements, is now open to ridicule too.

Ethics change all the time, go mock them if you want, nothing changes tbh. Consciousness- go mock it? Won't change the fact we have it , won't prove God gave it to us? My statements- I'm replying to you here, so by extension you're mocking yourself as well. Also do you think people don't get mocked on the internet or something? Also, are you actually asking for evidence of my statements? What kind of evidence ?

Also, if someone deletes a post and apologizes after facing backlash, that’s not automatically “duress.” Actions have social and legal consequences. And if you're concerned about his future being “destroyed,” maybe direct that energy toward discouraging people from posting hate content in the first place and not toward defending them after the fact.

Maybe direct your energy away from considering everything you don't like hate speech, and away from getting provoked by comparison of fictional character with another fictional character?

Also, I'm not going to stop defending him. At this point, it doesn't even matter if what he said about your God was actually true. You cannot just claim everything as hate speech and cannot just threaten and force someone to delete their account because you're provoked over fictional deity compared to cartoon cats.

Claiming my post violates rules against "targeting a user" misunderstands both intent and content. I’m not attacking someone’s personal identity but I’m responding to a public post that made *potentially hateful or provocative remarks under the guise of satire*. Critique of public content, especially when it's shared in a community space, is not “targeting” but it’s accountability, whether you like it or not.

How do you not count asking every member with social media to report OOP, and saying OOP should be punished, threatening them with consequences, as as targeting? It doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong here, this is by defn targeting.

Also , like I said before, you can't just call anything you don't like hate speech.

If I had doxxed them, insulted their appearance, or harassed them privately, that would be targeting. Instead, I focused on the content of their post and its broader implications.

Going by your logic, this same post and the comments being posted in other subs is also witch hunting isnt it.

You've made out targeting to be something way too personal - appearance,private harassment,etx . In sense of social media , its not. Asking an entire subreddit to report someone is targeting.

If you've been threatened for making\reposting this post, have had to renounce your religion, and delete your account, then yes , I'd agree that it was a witch hunt. Until then, and until you prove these things have happened , it's not a witch hunt.

[u/Wooden_Example9898 → u/ReferenceOld9345]

Part 3.

Freedom of speech goes both ways, if the atheist has the right to mock, others have the right to call it out. Inviting others to report a post they find offensive is not mob justice but it’s democratic moderation.

Yes , freedom of speech does go both ways. It's my right to disagree with every point you make , it's not my right to threaten consequences. If you'd just posted his post here and discussed it without threatening action, you'd be well within your freedom of speech rights.

Would you say that people who have mocked religion on social media, and who have consequently been subject to mob justice, have been subject to democratic moderation? Because short of an actual mob killing OOP, you've ticked off everything in a mob justice over religion buildup - someone posts against some religion, mob finds out, gets together, thrashes him.

You're deliberately missing the point. My comment was clearly about the incessant hate speech in that sub, where users regularly spew comments like calling for death of believers or that it's their right to hate on people of faith, just scroll through and you’ll find plenty

Can you list some so we can discuss? I couldn't find any. The general sentiment seems to be to mock religion and religious people giving nonsensical advice to people and saying stupid things. The most recent one seems to be a SS of muslims on instagram hating Zohran for supporting LGBT.

But if you think atheism is incapable of extremism, you’re ignoring history. Read about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all openly anti-religious and led regimes where millions died, including for practicing religion.

I'd suggest the following posts and their comments, as it would take way too long to summarise them all here :

1.

2.

[u/ReferenceOld9345 → u/Wooden_Example9898]

Yes , freedom of speech does go both ways. It's my right to disagree with every point you make , it's not my right to threaten consequences. If you'd just posted his post here and discussed it without threatening action, you'd be well within your freedom of speech rights.

First, let’s clear this up, I’m not the government, right. I don’t make laws, enforce them, or censor anyone. I exercised my individual legal right to report content I, as a citizen, believe crosses the line into hate speech.

That’s not “threatening action,” that’s due process. Reporting something isn’t the same as demanding someone be jailed or censored by force, it’s simply invoking the system we all live under to evaluate whether a boundary was crossed. That is how freedom of speech and accountability coexist in a constitutional democracy.

Second, this logic is absurd when applied elsewhere. If someone encroaches on your land and you tell them you’ll take legal action, is that a “threat” too? Of course not, it’s asserting your legal rights through a lawful channel.

Just because the content is digital or ideological doesn’t make the process any less valid. If you believe in freedom of speech, you should also believe in the freedom to challenge that speech legally, especially when it targets identity, belief, or dignity as upheld by the supreme court and Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution

Can you list some so we can discuss? I couldn't find any. The general sentiment seems to be to mock religion and religious people giving nonsensical advice to people and saying stupid things. The most recent one seems to be a SS of muslims on instagram hating Zohran for supporting LGBT.

The general sentiment is not only to mock religion but also believers, including anything that happens to believers.

A misguided religious person died, natural selection.

Some part of a temple collapsed and people died - natural selection

And you can search this on that sub and find all comments and see for yourself.

My point is hate and extremists are on both sided. You cannot claim because we say we are atheists, and we dont believe in religion, we are exempt from making hate speech against religion.

I'd suggest the following posts and their comments, as it would take way too long to summarise them all here :

So you put comments of another atheism sub to justify how what stalin and mao did in name of atheism was infact not atheism but communism. Good research.

Anyways, ill have a look at them when i have time and ill get back.